H. P. GRICE E J. L. SPERANZA: LA CONVERSAZIONE -- I VERBALI: PAPI

 G.: You have been reading that Milanese volume again. S.: One cannot avoid it; it stares at one from every shelf: il pensiero di someone. G.: A dreadful construction. It implies that the man has stopped thinking and been embalmed. S.: Milano seems fond of embalming. G.: I should not say so. They prefer continuity. S.: Which is precisely what Oxford lacks. G.: On the contrary, Oxford has continuity of a different kind. S.: The kind that consists in refuting one’s predecessor. G.: A perfectly respectable form of homage. S.: You call it homage; I call it treachery. G.: Only if you expect agreement to be the mark of fidelity. S.: Banfi would not have liked it. G.: Banfi might have enjoyed it. He was, after all, concerned with problems, not statues. S.: And what were his problems. G.: The usual ones, but taken seriously: the relation between knowledge and history, between form and life, between aesthetic experience and rational structure. S.: That sounds very Milanese. G.: It sounds philosophical. S.: Yet Papi treats it as a school. G.: Naturally. A school implies succession. S.: Whereas Oxford implies interruption. G.: Or correction. S.: Or repudiation. G.: You are determined to make it sound scandalous. S.: Look at Collingwood and Ryle. G.: Yes, do. S.: Would you think they held the same chair. G.: They did. S.: And yet they scarcely speak the same language. G.: That is precisely the point. S.: Which point. G.: That philosophy progresses by disagreement. S.: Milano would say it progresses by elaboration. G.: Milano says many sensible things. S.: But not that one. G.: You underestimate them. S.: Papi himself seems doubtful that Banfi’s problems were solved. G.: That is the most respectful thing one can say. S.: Respectful. G.: To preserve a problem is to honour it. S.: To solve it would be better. G.: Only if one could be sure one had done so. S.: You sound like you prefer problems to solutions. G.: I prefer intelligible problems to premature solutions. S.: That is very Oxford. G.: It is very reasonable. S.: Milano would insist on a lineage. G.: Yes, the laurea, the master, the pupil, the succession. S.: Banfi, then Papi, then others. G.: A genealogy of thought. S.: Whereas Oxford is an anthology of disagreements. G.: An excellent description. S.: You make it sound almost admirable. G.: It is admirable. S.: It is chaotic. G.: It is epagogic. S.: You will have to explain that. G.: It proceeds by example and counterexample. S.: And not by doctrine. G.: Precisely. S.: Milano is diagogic, then. G.: If you like, it proceeds by dialogue within a tradition. S.: And Oxford proceeds by dialogue against a tradition. G.: A neat antithesis, though perhaps too neat. S.: Papi would object. G.: He would say that even opposition presupposes continuity. S.: And you would say. G.: That continuity may be implicit rather than avowed. S.: Which sounds like your implicatures again. G.: I am incorrigible. S.: So Banfi’s problems. G.: He saw that rationality is historically situated. S.: And solved it. G.: He tried to articulate it. S.: Papi thinks the articulation incomplete. G.: Naturally. S.: Because history continues. G.: And so do problems. S.: This is very unsatisfactory. G.: Only if one expects closure. S.: Milano expects closure. G.: Milano expects development. S.: Oxford expects demolition. G.: Oxford expects improvement. S.: By demolition. G.: Sometimes. S.: You cannot deny that one generation rebuffs the other. G.: I can reinterpret it. S.: As what. G.: As a cooperative enterprise in which disagreement is the mode of contribution. S.: Cooperative. G.: Reason-governed. S.: You are dragging everything back to conversation. G.: It is where we live. S.: Banfi would say we live in history. G.: And I would say we talk in it. S.: Papi would say words open doors. G.: And I would ask which doors, and for whom. S.: The parola incantata. G.: A charming phrase. S.: You object to it. G.: I analyse it. S.: Which is worse. G.: Only for magicians. S.: So “Apriti Sesamo”. G.: Two words, not one. S.: And they charm. G.: They produce an effect by convention and expectation. S.: Milano would say by resonance. G.: Oxford would say by shared assumptions. S.: You reduce magic to inference. G.: I dignify inference as magic. S.: That is rather good. G.: I thought so. S.: But Banfi’s problems remain. G.: Of course. S.: Then Milano is right. G.: And so is Oxford. S.: That cannot be. G.: It must be, if the problems persist. S.: Papi would insist on the school. G.: I would insist on the conversation. S.: The school is a conversation. G.: Provided it allows dissent. S.: Milano allows dissent. G.: Within a frame. S.: Oxford has no frame. G.: It has too many frames. S.: That is the trouble. G.: That is the opportunity. S.: You are incorrigibly optimistic. G.: I am cautiously analytic. S.: Then what do we learn from Papi. G.: That problems have histories. S.: And from Oxford. G.: That histories have problems. S.: That sounds reversible. G.: It is. S.: Then perhaps we should all learn from Milano. G.: Or from Oxford. S.: Or from neither. G.: Or from both. S.: You are not going to decide. G.: Philosophy rarely does. S.: That is precisely Papi’s complaint. G.: And Banfi’s problem. S.: And your solution. G.: My description. S.: Which you refuse to call a solution. G.: Out of politeness. S.: To whom. G.: To the next generation, who will correct me. S.: Oxford again. G.: Inevitably. S.: Milano would preserve you. G.: A dreadful fate. S.: A statue. G.: Pensieroso. S.: No longer thinking. G.: Then let us remain unfinished. S.: Milano will object. G.: Oxford will applaud. S.: And Papi. G.: Will write another book. S.: At the end of which the contents will be placed. G.: As they should be. S.: That is faintly obscene. G.: It is Milanese. S.: Or philosophical. G.: Perhaps the same thing.